Talk:The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail

Archives of previous discussions can be found at:

• /Archive 1

Crucifixion Survival?

Apparently this book has been accused of saying that Jesus physically survived the Crucifixion. It's been many many years since I read it last, and I don't have a copy. Does anyone know if this is an accurate assesment of HBHG? - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.180.215.175 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC).

The authors conclude from their research in the book that the crucifixion was staged by Jesus and his apostles, after which Jesus and Mary Magdalene fled and started the Merovingian line (the Holy Blood/Grail). -RaCha'ar 16:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section?

A section or even paragraph describing how the authors have responded to such criticism would be appropriate. --24.118.206.25 00:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted most the previous content of this section. Rather than concentrating on Pierre Plantard, it should focus on the bad methodology of the authors and/or evidence that they were provided with, yet ignored, information which contradicted their thesis. --Loremaster 17:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain why Tony Robinson's excellent documentary on The Da Vinci Code is referred to as 'biased' and 'poorly researched'? Thiudareiks 02:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You might try asking 82.19.171.99, who edited it in today. Please keep in mind that this is a really controversial topic which is subject to a lot of POV warring, especially since there seem to be a lot of people who consider themselves scholars in the field. Loremaster has been doing an excellent job of keeping most POV editing under control, but if you see something like this you are welcome to edit it yourself to more accurately reflect an NPOV truth. I would encourage you to do so. -RaCha'ar 02:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've edited it to make it a bit more neutral - stressing that the conclusions of the Robinson documentary were the opinions of the presenter and researchers. The following part about how the criticism of the churches was motivated by the book exposing its 'centuries of oppression' was also hardly neutral as well, so I've edited that with something more reasonable. Thiudareiks 05:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of your changes, and added a few more of my own. Do other editors concur? If not, feel free to continue tweaking. :) --Elonka 16:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I was going to add something about Baigent's recent backpedalling, but I wanted to re-watch 'The Real Da Vinci Code' first. I think the current 'Criticism' section states things clearly and neutrally. Thiudareiks 00:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Pseudohistory?

I only read a few words and was compelled to write this. Pseudohistory????? The research that went into this book, which I have read twice so far, is amazing. How could that much information be labelled as pseudo? Because you say so? — 64.57.101.198

A certain free online encyclopedia says: "Pseudohistory typically blends together real history with myths and legends, without any attempt at criticism or fact checking."—which sounds like a perfect description of this book, except that it neglects to mention "reams of wild speculation", which is another key characteristic of Baigent et al's method. Pseudohistory is a nice way of describing it. —No-One Jones 10:08, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Realms of speculation" would be a more accurate description, as the authors clearly state throughout the book that they are speculating on what hypothetically might have happened. If the reader takes all this as established historical fact, that is not the authors' fault. --Sentience 01:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Pseudohistory??? It is every reader's own responsibility to cross check references. Surely we do not expect every entry in Wikipedia to be above any doubt. I truly enjoyed reading HBHG over 7 years ago. However I saw it as an attempt to explain certain historical events, to challenge the generally accepted doctrine of the "Holy" Roman Catholic Church and a new approach to what was essentially to become European History. The book is essentially pseudohistory. But history has a way of rewriting itself. So it may become History one day.

Though the book is speculation, it is based more on research and documented accounts than it is on myths and legends. And suggesting that there was no "attempt at criticism or fact checking" is ridiculous, considering not only the substantial bibliography and citation section at the back but the several times in the text in which the authors themselves question or debunk a source. Therefore it's about as much pseudohistory as an other mass marketed history book, just as say Harold Bloom's "Shakespeare and the Invention of the Human" could be called Pseudohistory, but won't as it's not as controversial.--Spectre General 7 May 2006

Just FYI I have listed the article "pseudohistory" for deletion today. At best it should be a dictionary article, and i'm not even convinced about that - it is basically nothing more than a perjorative term for something you don't agree with and don't like. All history is "pseudohistory" in some way. Whilst wishing to be clear I make no comment on the quality of this book, which I haven't read, the introdocution line describing it as "a conspirational work of pseudohistory" is absolutely unacceptable for an Encyclopaedia committed to preserving a neutral point of view. Criticisms of the book, of which I'm sure there are many, should be sourced, dispassionately rendered, and put in the criticism section. I have boldly edited the introduction accordingly. ElectricRay 23:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The Pseudohistory article was nominated for deletion on 7 May 2006. The result of the discussion was keep, nomination withdrawn--Loremaster 00:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, the definition of "pseudohistory" offered by No One Jones sounds like a spot-on description of conventional Christianity (as well as religion in general)! Jonas Liljeström 12:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that ironic.

About Paul Smith the Debunker

On Feb 6, 2005, Paul Smith edited the Holy Blood, Holy Grail article to write the following:

"The "conclusions" of Baigent Lincoln and Leigh can hardly be described as "controversial" by the academics - only their nutty supporters can claim such a thing! And did it really take "years" of research to write that book?

Wikipedia WILL become the focus of attention on the http://priory-of-sion.com website with its nutty descriptions of pseudo-historical twaddle and some people here will get their come-uppance!

What a disgraceful promotion of a nutty book that was never history in the first place - only a product of the imagination.

"Loremaster" - the person who controls this webpage is a true fruitcake who should stand on the same side as the Henry Lincolns of this world. He is a maniac."

1. No contributor to the Holy Blood, Holy Grail article has ever suggested that academics find Baigent, Lincoln & Leigh's conclusions to be controversials. However, if a book is banned in many countries because of the conclusions it contains, it's obvious that they have created a controversy.

2. Regardless of whether one judges these authors' research methodology as being unacademic (which I do), it doesn't change the fact that it took them many years to finish their work.

3. I don't think anyone cares whether Wikipedia is unfairly attacked by an overzealous fringe debunker on his website.

4. Wikipedia is not being used by anyone to promote HBHG. The article has always been and continues to be quite clear about the pseudo-historicity of the book and it's claims. The reason why HBHG has and deserves an article is because it has and continues to have a significant influence on popular culture.

5. Although I watch this article carefully to make sure it doesn't degenerate from a neutral entry in an encyclopedia to an hysterical tabloid editorial, I do not control it. Everyone, including Paul Smith, is free to edit and expand it to make it better.

6. Although I've always been fascinated by the HBHG and the Priory of Sion for reasons best explained by Alex Burns, I've always and continue to be extremely skeptical. Although my contributions may not have conveyed this to Paul Smith's satisfaction, I don't see how this makes me a fruitcake or a maniac. Seriously. Are all these insults necessary?

Loremaster 22:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On Feb 7, 2005, Paul Smith edited the Holy Blood, Holy Grail article to write the following:

"The article on this webpage is a sheer act of vandalism - it gives a technical definition on a book of POOR fantasy and which is less colourful than anything written by, say, Sven Hassel. The Authors of this "book" were informed well before they finished writing it by French researcher Jean-Luc Chaumeil that the story was all a load of dogshit."

One has to be blind not to see that the article clearly explains that HBHG is a book of pseudohistory. An article in any respectable encyclopedia must be a neutral technical definition devoid of vitriol. However, if Paul Smith wants to create a Criticism section in the article itself, he is more than welcomed. Loremaster 20:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Citation by Channel 4 documentary

The web-pages accompanying the Channel 4 documentary The Real Da Vinci Code cites this article here. —Phil | Talk 09:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should include a mention of these pages in the External links section of the article. --Loremaster 18:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Loremaster 18:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Paul Smith is a well known debunker of all aspects of the controversy regarding HBHG and every aspect of the Rennes-le-Chateau mystery. He has a personal motivation as a staunch Christian and has as his mission a need to debunk the central notion that Jesus might have married Mary Magdalene. The details of the alternative history of HBHG and the like are debatable certainly, but when one reviews this core contention and applies an oft repeated scientific principal of Occum's Razor, the liklihood that Jesus was man who led a radical Jewish sect and was married and had children with Mary, was captured with the help of a few collaborative conserative Jewish leaders and crucified as a trouble maker by the Romans makes more sense than the mythological virgin birth, resurrection and ascent to heaven as many historians heavily saturated with unscientific theology. They forged and created documents and cohersed to power in Rome and then engaged in a new and vicious conquest of Europe and the world as the New Roman Empire. That one woman with a child or two escaped to a Jewish communtiy in Southern France is quite plausable and if tradtion has any weight, seems abundantly factual when visiting certain areas of Southern France.

I have never seen anything written by Paul Smith that is not vindictively penned as is this comment.

Title

My copy of this book (Corgi 1982, reprinted 1983) is entitled "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail". Has any edition appeared with the title "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" which is used in the main article ? NH.

According to amazon.com the book's name is "Holy Blood, Holy grail" and the last print said to be a Reissue edition (January 15, 1983) bears that name [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SirIbus (talk • contribs) .

Research on various Amazons and other booksellers/catalogues indicates that "HB, HG" is what the title was changed to in the USA for the '83 release there. The original UK edition (London: 1982) came out as "The... and the..." See also here. I think that justifies the page move I just did. Bolivian Unicyclist 22:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

References

This article needs to make proper use of end notes (references). Fuzzform 00:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree. --Loremaster 18:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Dubious Neutrality

This article is deeply biased and one sided, and should be edited not only to present references to the other side of the debate, but to remove buzzwords like "conspiratorial" and "pseudohistory". I would like to re-add that disputed neutrality notice mentioned above, but I have no idea how to do that. Spectre General 7 May 2006

Added the notice. I (and obviously a few others) feel that the article is heavily biased on the side of the book's critics, both in citation and tone. Spectre General 7 May 2006

Though I agree that the article is slightly one-sided, I really don't think its that extreme. Calling the work "conspiratorial" makes sense as the work claims that the Priory of Sion is a secret society; in other words a conspiracy. Also, pseudohistory really just means non-mainstream history, which Holy Blood, Holy Grail certainly is. KalevTait 20:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholly that the book is essentially a conspiracy theory, but referring to it as a "conspiratorial book" especially considering its multiple authors gives the book itself the feel of some kind of plot or prank.

That, and the fact that in the first sentence alone the words "conspiratorial", "pseudohistory" and "hoax" starts the reader off as dismissing the book before anything has been said about it. It's really the cumulative effect of putting all these elements together.

I think it would be more appropriate to essentially say that the book is the theory of the authors about this conspiracy, and not itself conspiratorial. It's splitting hairs a bit, but the difference in meaning is there.

As well, the book isn't really based on the Sion hoax, even if it was taken in by it. It's based on a body of independent research by the authors, who drew many of their own connections and conclusions.

It's mainly just elements like these I feel should be rearranged, and not so much deleted, to make the entry feel like it's presenting the facts about the book instead of arguing against it. Some balance in terms of the criticism and critical weblinks would be nice too, just to get a more rounded presentation. Spectre General 16:55, 7 May 2006

I say be bold and do it! If you're just rearanging the same information in a way that you think is more NPOV, then I don't see how that can be a problem, even if someone thinks it is already NPOV. KalevTait 21:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Steps towards Featured Article status

In light of the international interest in The Da Vinci Code and The Holy Blood & Holy Grail, I think we should radically improve the Priory of Sion article in order for it to be featured on the Main Page of Wikipedia.

Before we push the article to Peer review - a step that should always be taken before the Featured Articles Candidates step - , we need to improve the Content and Criticism section and extensively provided references for every paragraph in this article following Wikipedia:Citing sources guidelines. --Loremaster 18:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

About the External links

We should follow the Wikipedia:External links guidelines. --Loremaster 20:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed links to fringe websites and left links to notable reviews. --Loremaster 01:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

About See also

According to a Wikipedia rule of thumb: 1) if something is in See also, try to incorporate it into main body 2) if something is in main body, it should not be in see also and therefore 3) good articles have no See also sections. --Loremaster 16:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. Done. 16:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

I saw that the phrase "conspiratorial work of pseudohistory" had been edited in place of "controversial non-fiction book" and reverted it for POV. Now I see by previous discussion that I may have been incorrect to do so - I saw that it has survived many edits, but upon review, most of those edits have been very recent and this phrase was in fact intact and apparently agreed upon before. I apologize for removing it and have left its revert intact, but I want to ask what consensus now exists among the editors of this article with regards to this phrase? It seems to me, coming into this article for the first time ever upon seeing this edit on recent changes patrol, that "conspiratorial work of pseudohistory" verges on flamebait, but I understand the arguments presented above for keeping it. I suppose I just want to know if I was totally out of line to revert it; if nothing else, it'll be a lesson for me to read up more before removing POV edits.  :) Thanks. -RaCha'ar 22:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I replaced "conspiratorial work of pseudohistory" with "controversial non-fiction book" because conspiratorial work wrongly implies that the authors are conspirators rather than conspiracy theorists. Since the article goes to explain that the claims of the authors are pseudohistorical, I think calling their book a "conspiratorial work of pseudohistory" is unnecessary. Unless someone can convince me otherwise, I will continue to revert this article to the previous version I edited. --Loremaster 23:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Understood, and that's what I figured... however, you may want to take the anon user who keeps putting it back to Wikipedia:3RR now.  :/ -RaCha'ar 23:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm really concerned that this page is not NPOV enough. Anyone reading it for the first time would conclude that The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail is a completely legitimate work -- the criticisms section has been virtually neutered to the point where I'm not even sure if it's in English.

"The true facts about Pierre Plantard and the Priory of Sion were passed on to the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail by the French journalist and author Jean-Luc Chaumeil, who has an extensive archive on this subject matter."

How is that an opening sentence? What does it even mean? What true facts? Why is his a"rchive being extensive" relevent or not? In reality, the main documents The Holy Blood was based on were forgeries. This really needs to be highlighted more. 193.129.65.37 05:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I find your reading of this article odd since it contains several sentences that are quite critical of the subject in question. As for the actual criticism section, as I explained in the first comment at the top of this page, it was "neutered" because the previous content focused too much on attacking some specific acts of Pierre Plantard rather than being a critique of the book itself. However, as the tag in that section makes quite clear, everyone should feel free to expand it. --Loremaster 19:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

72.49.167.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) AKA 128.40.48.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) AKA 24.1.70.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) AKA 195.92.168.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) AKA 195.92.168.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (whom I reasonably suspect to be Paul Smith, overzealous author of the Priory of Sion debunking website, has repeatedly edited the content of the Priory of Sion and The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail to suit his clearly biased point of view while refusing numerous invitations to discuss a compromise on the talk page of these articles. I am therefore requesting a page semiprotection. --Loremaster 03:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In light of the fact that this user is engaging in unWikipedian behavior but hasn't *recently* crossed the line into vandalism yet, I won't push this issue into arbitration. However, I invite him to discuss this dispute here in a civil manner to avoid this needless edit war. --Loremaster 15:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: 72.49.167.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been temporarily blocked by an administrator. --Loremaster 19:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've brought this issue to the attention of Wikipedia administrators on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Loremaster 15:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Dead Sea Scrolls Deception

In Influence and similarities section, we need to explain the influence and/or similarities between The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception and the The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. --Loremaster 23:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What, dare I ask, is the Dead Sea Scrolls Deception?--Tomtom9041 17:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The recent PoV pusher

It looks like the anonymous PoV pusher has now registered a username with which to push the same PoV. Perhaps we need to ask the admins if that user is coming in through the same range of IP addresses as the earlier Anon?

Atlant 13:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I may not be using this properly - I am not especailly computer-aware - so if I am writing in the wrong place I apologise unreservedly. There is a problem with volumes like Holy Blood Holy Grail and its many imitators. HBHG is not a valid work of history. The authors were not source-critical in any sense, and happily repeated 18th century romances as medieval evidence just so longt as it suited their purpose. They might as well have watched Braveheart and cited that as a valid view of medieval Scotland. Much HBHG is nothing more than a POV with no supporting evidence. For the record, 'pseudohistory' is not simply historical analysis beyond the mainstream, it is the use of wishful-thinking to justify a desire, in this case the desire to make a lot of money - which it has done.

CHRB

While I would tend to agree with the sentiment that you express regarding this work and the various other articles that you have been editing, both registered and prior to registration, there are accepted policies with regard to article development. Collaboration on the talk page is recommended in order to avoid unseemly edit wars. The Three Revert Rule being part of the mitigation for that.

My personal view is that the issues around the various articles are reasonably captured in the current articulation, in a balanced fashion, your edits would not comply with the guidance around Point of View and should be written in as academic a manner as possible, given your claim to have recently completed a Doctoral Thesis then I'm sure you appreciate the style that should take, frankly the edits you have been trying to push in the last day or so do not appear to be adequately formed in that fashion.

As Atlant has pointed out, there are no exceptions to the 3RR and as such you may find yourself subject to a short edit block in the near future.

With regard to Lomas please see my questions on the talk page of that article.ALR 18:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

CHRB, let me see if I can explain why some of your edits to this article don't conform to WP:NPOV. One of the concepts involved with that policy is that we should not think for the reader, but let the readers think for themselves. Another is that we should not use loaded words to predispose someone to think along a certain line. Using words and phrases such as "fantasy," "psuedo-" and "though they provide no evidence" all act as judgements upon the work. In a community project like Wikipedia there are going to be many contentious subjects. If we tried to judge each topic, as opposed to simply reporting on it, we would have endless edit wars from people with differing views. The WP:NPOV policy is intended to prevent that. Instead of judgmental, slanted or loaded descriptions, we try to use words that describe the topic as neutrally as possible. That doesn't mean we can't report truth (fact: Response from mainstream historians and academics was nearly universally negative) but that we shouldn't try to place our OWN judgements into the article. Along with the "nearly universally negative" statement and the fact that in the lead paragraph we point out it was based on a known hoax, we're already pointing out facts that put the book in the proper light. What we have to avoid, however, is putting our own value-judgements into the article. Every article in Wikipedia must be written in wording that is as neutral as possible. That is why I'm going to have to change some of the edits you've made. Believe me, it is nothing personal and I happen to share your views about the validity of the book. I'm simply trying to tone down the loaded words and return the article(s) to NPOV. SWAdair 03:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. I caught myself just in time. That would have made four reverts in 24 hours. Okay, I'll let someone else do it. I do hope, however, that you understand and accept the explanation of why those edits need to be reverted. Thank you. SWAdair 03:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with the above - we're not here to debate the merits of the arguments and to pass judgement. If you feel the article does not present facts, then let's work together to provide alternative (or in this case the mainsteam) positions. Identify the areas you'd like to change, and let's work out some language or find verifiable sources. Thank you very much for discussing your changes so that we could better understand your position. Kuru ^talk 03:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Odd Additon

I've trimmed the following text from the article: anyone have any other references or any reason why this would add to the specific topic (the book)?

One of the more outlandish yet interesting internet conspiracy theories that has spawned as a result of renewed interest in the Magdalene-Christ debate, seemingly ties in both The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail and The Da Vinci Code while actually going a step further to put forth that the entire “Bloodline of Christ” theory is a well-orchestrated and intentional hoax directed at the world, whilst having a single sinister goal to bring Bloodline believers into acceptance that one of these living “Bloodline descendants” will rise up to become a future “Messianic figure” (not Christ, but the literal Antichrist), and that this Bloodline heresy is the very deception Secret Societies are using to promote this future Merovingian King onto the world stage.

This just seems like a WP:OR more than content specific to the book. Would prefer commentary before this is re-introduced. Kuru ^talk 18:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it seems like Original Research. The only reference is a personal website at angelfire.com. Unless some other credible sources can be produced, it should stay out of the article. --Elonka 21:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Travels of Jesus and heirs

I know this is more of a historical/speculative question - but, assuming that Jesus had a family and it was felt by his wife/siblings/offspring that it was not safe for them to reside in the given locality or indeed the Roman Empire - why not move outside the Empire?

And - what is the point of protecting the bloodline: unless there is a good reason to do so, the safest action is to let the children disappear into the general population. 212.85.0.1 17:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not a separate article?

Hi..I would like The Messainic Legacy, which is a sequel and a book in its own right to be entered as a different article rather than being huddled together along with Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. Please let me know how that can be done.Thanks.Sriram sh 05:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article - originally posted by 82.17.134.15

I know this will be deleted and perhaps so it should be, but in my opinion, the critics are referring to only 3 main strong hold points in the novel (missing out the main point, the place of crucifixtion). And, who on earth listens to a TV show over a book!?!

If historians are determined to prove this novel false then I would expect to see their reaction to each piece of the novel proven false - not just "Jesus never married, just because!" It is a huge book and in order to argue each case would probably knock Wikipedia off the Net! Prove your points and then I will start to consider it BBQ book material!

By the way, this is intended to go into the section above but everytime I click edit it chooses this section.